Ridenoure v. Ball
381 S.W.3d 101
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Balls sought a prescriptive easement over the Ridenoures’ Madison County property.
- Ridenoures defended, arguing use was permissive, and claimed abandonment and excessive width issues.
- Oelsner constructed a road in 1979; Bolinger gate blocked access and later was removed when Balls purchased.
- Oelsner’s conduct and Bolinger’s actions were central to whether use constituted adverse possession.
- Balls purchased their property (including the easement) in June 2004; disputes over width and entry persisted.
- Circuit court found a prescriptive easement existed, did not award damages, and relied on a surveyor’s description for width.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Balls proved a prescriptive easement despite alleged permissive use | Balls contended use became adverse and ripened into an easement. | Ridenoure argued use was permissive, not adverse, and thus no easement. | Balls established a prescriptive easement. |
| Whether the easement was abandoned | Ridenoure claimed long nonuse evidenced abandonment. | Balls argued ongoing use and access, showing no abandonment. | No abandonment; easement remained. |
| Whether the easement width was properly specified and not broader than use | Surveyor’s thirty-foot width description aligned with the record; no wider easement implied. | Disputes over width suggested the easement should be narrower than described. | Court’s reliance on surveyor’s thirty-foot description was not error; width affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridenoure v. Ball, 2010 Ark. App. 572 (Ark. App. 2010) (prescriptive easement and related issues in Arkansas appellate context)
- Carson v. County of Drew, 354 Ark. 621 (Ark. 2003) (standard for prescriptive rights and use over property)
- Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. Vocque, 307 Ark. 271 (Ark. 1991) (evidence and factual review in equity proceedings)
- Burdess v. Ark. Power & Light Co., 268 Ark. 901 (Ark. App. 1980) (abandonment and nonuse discussions in easement context)
- Owners Ass’n of Foxcroft Woods, Inc. v. Foxglen Assocs., 346 Ark. 354 (Ark. 2001) (group ownership and rights affecting easements)
- King v. Powell, 85 Ark. App. 212 (Ark. App. 2004) (appellate treatment of easement width and description)